Committee rejects Nash's lawsuit attempt

Published 11:04 pm, Wednesday, April 2, 2014

HARTFORD -- Charla Nash's last chance to sue the state over the nearly fatal chimp attack in Stamford requires taking her case directly to the House and Senate, following rejection of her claim Wednesday in the Judiciary Committee.

The 35-3 vote in the committee to uphold the earlier rejection of her request by the state claims commissioner came after lawmakers said they are sympathetic with her plight.

Nash, in a statement, was stunned and was unsure whether she would appeal directly to the 151-member state House and 36 senators.

"I am heartbroken," the 60-year-old said. "The fact that I will not be able to tell my side of the story to a court of law is devastating. This process isn't fair. Right now, I need some time to think things through and talk with my family. I wanted a chance to be able to pay my medical bills and get the assistance I need to live as normal of a life as possible. I can't give up hope now. This means too much to my daughter, Briana, and me."

Blinded and mauled, with a face transplant after the February 2009 attack on Stamford's Rockrimmon Road, Nash appeared before the committee on March 21.

She asked for permission to let a state Superior Court judge decide whether the former state Department of Environmental Protection was negligent in allowing the late Sandra Herold to keep the 200-pound chimpanzee, Travis. Department officials were aware of the animal's size, which required his seizure, but committee members didn't believe the state is culpable in events leading up to the attack.

Wednesday's vote came after 25 minutes of debate. The bill upholding the claims commissioner's decision, a joint resolution, next goes to the House, which traditionally upholds Judiciary Committee recommendations.

Rep. Gerald M. Fox, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the committee, said the mauling is a tragedy.

"This is an incredibly difficult set of circumstances, and being from Stamford, where Charla Nash resided, while I did not know her personally, I can say that she and her daughter have and had at the time a reputation for being just incredibly nice, decent people and, they find themselves in a situation that none of us could hope on anyone," Fox said.

"She and her daughter are continuing on and are facing what so many of us think is unthinkable," Fox said. "I applaud them for that and admire them tremendously for that."

Some opposition on the committee was the result of the $150 million claim, which members of the panel were told earlier in the week would be reduced to $60 million. Currently, Nash spends about $16,000 a month for treatments, rehabilitation and housing in Massachusetts.

Fox said the money was "irrelevant" compared to the issue of whether the state had a duty to seize the chimpanzee.

"The other thing that we hear often is that she knew of the situation and then she put herself in that place," Fox said. "For me, the contributory negligence aspect, which would be certainly relevant at a trial and which might ultimately mean Ms. Nash does not prevail, for my purposes or at least for my analysis, it does not come into consideration. The DEP did have some awareness of the chimp and they did know that it had the potential possibility for danger. But that, in my mind, alone does not leap to the level that the state then has a responsibility as a private individual would in the same type of situation."

He said that the state could become a target "in a whole host" of similar cases. About 350 claims per year are filed against the state, but only a small percentage are approved.

State Attorney General George Jepsen, who last month urged the rejection of Nash's request to sue, supported the committee decision in a brief statement Thursday afternoon.

"I commend the Judiciary Committee for its careful consideration of this difficult and sensitive matter, and I believe they made the correct decision," Jepsen said.

Rep. Richard A. Smith, R-New Fairfield, said the Legislature can't change the law retroactively, but the committee should look at the whole claims process.

"When you look at the case, as horrific as it is, it really comes down to, does the state have a duty to Ms. Nash that is different than the duty to the general public?" Smith said. "If the answer to that is no, then there is no claim and the commissioner's decision should be upheld. And the answer to that question is no. She did not have a specialized right or a specialized claim."